-4

I am totally lost on how to do this... can anyone help?

What does it mean? I tried to understand what it means before proof but am totally clueless

  • 1
    Assume the antecedent and assume Pa. From it, by exists-intro, derive a contradiction. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Nov 22 '19 at 7:37
-1

¬∃xP(x)→(P(a)→Q(a))

What does it mean? I tried to understand what it means before proof but am totally clueless

It says: P(a)→Q(a) is true, if P(x) holds for no x.

So why would P(a)→Q(a) be true when that is assumed?

-1

@GrahamKemp is correct. The statement says that if P(x) holds for no member of the universe of discourse, then P(a)->Q(a).

The fact that we don't have a def for P(x) or Q(x) is is irrelevant because of the truth-table for the material conditional, which tells us that anytime the antecedent --here P(a)-- is false, the material conditional is true. [Remember, validity in natural logic is about truth preservation it can't help you when you start with a false statement].

So the proof is relatively easy: enter image description here

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.